Model comparison
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Ling 2.6 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 #77 (Estimated); Ling 2.6 Flash #154 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Ling 2.6 Flash share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 18 to Ling 2.6 Flash.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Claude Haiku 4.5 only
- 5
- Ling 2.6 Flash only
- 18
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 262K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Haiku 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 56.58 to 43.87. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Haiku 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 73.3 against 27.
Ling 2.6 Flash gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for Claude Haiku 4.5.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 output | Ling 2.6 FlashNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | Ling 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | Ling 2.6 Flash1.07 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5200K | Ling 2.6 Flash262K | Ling 2.6 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic5 benchmarks
CodingClaude Haiku 4.5 wins4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 14.1% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 59% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 6.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -65.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 15.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1152 | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Claude Haiku 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.58 to 43.87.
Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.3 versus 27. Ling 2.6 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.